Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

si.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–277 of 277 posts

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#271

Post by talmand »

dizzystar wrote: post #202
talmand wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick look at Google shopping disagrees with shoes vs skates and hockey sticks. Although I'm not up to speed at what qualifies as a decent hockey stick and the required cost.

A decent pair of hockey skates are $300+. You also have to take them in to get sharpened every week if you are that aggressive on them. This is $60/mth. You also have to invest in padding, helmets, gloves, socks, and so on.

What defines a "decent pair" of skates and why do they cost $300? Wouldn't a nice pair off the shelf at less than $100 or around $50 suffice for a young kid just wanting to play hockey?

I didn't consider the maintenance aspect; the need for sharpening makes sense though.

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#272

Post by talmand »

NoPiece wrote: post #127
talmand wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick look at Google shopping disagrees with shoes vs skates and hockey sticks. Although I'm not up to speed at what qualifies as a decent hockey stick and the required cost.

There are inexpensive youth and junior skates ( https://www.purehockey.com/c/ice-hockey-skates-senior

Ah, you provided examples unlike the other comment I responded to. Thank you for that.

But if priced low-to-high the senior skates on that site start at $64.99 and go up from there. Assuming that the lower cost skates are not worth it, you get what you pay for and all that, what's wrong with the middle tier skates that are in the $100-$200 range? How long do they last once a kid's foot doesn't outgrow it every 3-to-6 months?

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#273

Post by dizzystar »

talmand wrote: post #271
dizzystar wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent pair of hockey skates are $300+. You also have to take them in to get sharpened every week if you are that aggressive on them. This is $60/mth. You also have to invest in padding, helmets, gloves, socks, and so on.

What defines a "decent pair" of skates and why do they cost $300? Wouldn't a nice pair off the shelf at less than $100 or around $50 suffice for a young kid just wanting to play hockey? I didn't consider the maintenance aspect; the need for sharpening makes sense though.

Good skates can be baked and molded to their feet.

Cheap skates are like cheap running shoes. Yeah, they get the job done until the ill-fitted skates don't offer proper fit and support. Your kid is fine for a month, then they have welts from the cheap insoles and twisted ankles from no stability.

Just wanting to skate at the rink is one thing, practicing and chasing pucks on top of learning edge control demands proper equipment.

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#274

Post by test6554 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #185
ChuckMcM wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its true they could. I think of it like auto repair shops. Here is something really valuable to your daily life, and you want it taken care of properly, but how do you verify that the person you are talking to is honest and trustworthy? You could buy the factory service manual for your car and read it cover to cover, with digressions into the parts which are assumed to be known by anyone servicing a vehicle, and then…

> In my experience in the Bay area with people who suddenly have more wealth than their friends and family ever did, there are two ways that people seem to split. Either they start splendiforus spending because they are "rich" or the start calculating what sort of 'burn rate' they can support drawing down at a rate of anywhere between 2% and 10% of their net worth. Wow that's depressing as hell. I've seen the spendin…

I feel the same. I have been in the top 2 to 3% income-wise but I spend money like I am on food stamps.

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#275

Post by LordKano »

Kluny wrote: post #97
LordKano wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider a much less drastic step. Mandatory contribution of 10% of their income into an investment account and that has a maximum annual withdrawal of 1% until age 55. If they otherwise destroy their finances, they'll at least be able to afford a place to live.

In Canada we have the CPP (Canada Pension Plan) which is almost literally this, except everyone pays into it.

In the US, we have Social Security and everyone pays into that but for the most part, you can't collect anything on the benefits until you reach retirement age or become permanently disabled.

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#276

Post by 1jojojo »

specialist wrote: post #90
ch4s3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, I'm postulating a bit. >I'm no sure if that's all true of if it's anything more than correlation, but it makes some sense as a hypothesis. As I said, I could be wrong. But we know that other fields like management, fashion, music, etc are dominated by risk takers. It may not be true of sports or all sports, but you could imagine that a risk taking basketball player, football QB or running back, soccer forward, o…

Please stop explaining yourself. They're trolling you.

I'm not trolling here. The people I know who have been successful athletes developed as a result of discipline and hard work, not because of risk-taking, and certainly not to their own detriment.

Re: How and Why Athletes Go Broke (2009)

#277

Post by kpil »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #135
kpil wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put that kind of money in a savings account, the bank will call you twice a day until they have made you move the money into something more profitable (for them.)

I would be surprised if the bank complained. They are only on the hook for $250K per the FDIC and could cover it with a low interest interbank loan from the FED. Since their mandatory reserve is only a fraction of the cash on deposit they will happily leverage it for greater returns paying you your paltry .7% while collecting much more than that.

A savings account without a fixed term requires that the bank balances that with reasonably short instruments. If it's a huge sum they will get nervous since they need a certain amount of liquidity as reserves and that's expensive. Keeping liquidity over the night gives very little interest, or even negative interest in some countries.
Post reply on HN